[PATCH] input: ambakmi: Fix system PM by converting to modern callbacks

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:32:45AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 04:58:22PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:30:29PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:22:10AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:41:48PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > > > > The legacy system PM support has long time ago been dropped from the
> > > > > AMBA bus. Align to that by converting to the modern system PM
> > > > > callbacks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fixes: 26825cfd90f9 (ARM: 7914/1: amba: Drop legacy PM support ...)
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org>
> > > > 
> > > > If this has not been noticed since end of 2013 maybe we should drop the
> > > > driver?
> > > 
> > > That's rather silly.  It isn't a build breakage, and it's not a
> > > functional breakage.  In fact, this driver gets build and boot tested
> > > every evening on hardware I have here in my autobuild system.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The regression is only visible if it is used on a platform with power
> > > management support, and that's probably close to none - unless hibernate
> > > support is enabled.  I'm just pushing up some patches which fix long
> > > term hibernation issues on ARM.
> > > 
> > > If we apply your "lets drop stuff" argument, maybe we should drop ARM
> > > hibernation support because its been broken for many years... obviously
> > > that's also a rediculous suggestion.
> > 
> > Why is it a ridiculous suggestion? If it has been broken for  many
> > years I do not see why it has to be kept? Is there someone who is
> > actively working on making it functional?
> 
> I *didn't* say it was broken everywhere - it's exactly the same situation
> as ambakmi.  It doesn't work in a certain scenario, but that doesn't mean
> it doesn't work at all, and it doesn't mean that there are no users of it.

I can only go by what you told me and if you re-read what you wrote
above you will see that you said that "ARM hibernation support ... been
broken for many years". You did not say that if was broken only in
certain cases.

> 
> The lesson I'm trying to teach you is that a patch or a report which says

I do not need to you to "teach me a lesson", thank you very much.
Please keep your condescension to yourself.

> something is broken does not _necessarily_ mean it's broken everywhere,
> and jumping on the "oh we can remove it then" bandwagon immediately without
> taking the time to understand the nature of the breakage is a totally
> rediculous attitude for a kernel maintainer to take.  In fact, it's
> positively harmful.
> 
> Had I not noticed your message, you would have probably ended up removing
> a driver which is very much in use, is functional, and therefore is not
> as broken as Ulf claims.
> 
> The other lesson to come away from this is that just because someone claims
> something is broken does *not* make it broken.  It means _they_ are seeing
> some problem which maybe no one else is seeing.  Again, that's no basis to
> jump on the "lets remove the whole driver then" bandwagon.

You were on the mail as well as arm list, so I was not concerned about
accidentally removing something that is in active use. Still, when I see
a patch to a driver that claims to fix a regression in basic
functionality (and I do consider PM basic functionality nowadays) that
was introduced about year and a half ago the question if this driver is
still relevant is warranted. I can't keep in mind everyone's pet
sub-arches and whether all drivers are used or not.

> 
> And I doubt that Ulf even has the hardware to be able to test this change,
> which makes it even worse.

But you will be able to, right?

> 
> So please, stop this idiotic "someone reports something broken, lets remove
> the driver" attitude without first analysing whether the breakage actually
> prevents anyone from using the driver.

Did you see the patch going in removing the driver? No? So take it easy,
the process worked as it should have been - the question was posted and
the answer was given.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry